There is a world somewhere between reality and fiction. Although ignored by many, it is very real and so are those living in it. This forum is about the natural world. Here, wild animals will be heard and respected. The forum offers a glimpse into an unknown world as well as a room with a view on the present and the future. Anyone able to speak on behalf of those living in the emerald forest and the deep blue sea is invited to join.
03-24-2015, 12:36 AM( This post was last modified: 03-24-2015, 12:38 AM by Amnon242 )
(03-24-2015, 12:10 AM)'GrizzlyClaws' Wrote: Imagine when you are facing the giant Baikal from the Assiniboine Park, that's probably beyond mind boggling.
I´m sure he would not kill me...because I would die of heart attack :)
Well, he will definitely be confined in his enclosure, but I bet that most people will still find it an amazing experience with having the eye contact with a such massive giant feline.
03-24-2015, 10:13 AM( This post was last modified: 03-24-2015, 10:15 AM by GuateGojira )
(03-23-2015, 10:51 PM)'Amnon242' Wrote:
(02-01-2015, 09:42 AM)'GuateGojira' Wrote: Using both modern and old records, Bengal tigers seems to average about 210 kg (463 lb). If we use only modern animals, including the Sundarbans, the average seems about 200 kg (440 lb), but if we use only mainland tigers, the average seems to be about 219 kg (483 lb).
I am quoting from memory, so the actual figures could be about one to five kilograms of difference, more or less.
Interestingly, if we join the old and the modern Amur tiger records, they also have an average of about 200 kg overall.
219 kg average is pretty impressive...decisive advantage against wild amurs and equal to captive amurs...who are very huge felids. I have seen 220-250 kg tigers (including 220 kg bengal - white...btw no fat, just pure muscle) and these animals are really monstrous, especially when you see them in 1 meter distance :-)
BTW what are the data about sundarban tigers? Are they really that small?
I was able to touch, yes touch, a huge white tiger that weighed no less than 600 lb and probably up to 700 lb as it was HUGE!!! The head of that animal was as long as my forearm which measure c.50 cm, and its tail in the base, was as wide as my arm.
On the Sundarbans issue, the few available data and the testimonies of the people in the area, show that Sundarbans tigers are very small, and contrary to popular knowledge, they population is very small, probably no more than 100 or 200 specimens, in the best case.
The problem with the Sundarbans is that there are no longer large prey species, and add the fact that thanks to the global warming, the mangroves are been flooded with more saline water that affect mammals, like the tiger. It is well known that tigers most drink water with high levels of salt, plus the largest prey that a tiger can found in the area are the chital deer, which in the Sundarbans, don't weight more than 50 or 60 kg. Sundarbans tigers are not living in a paradise, they are living in the edge, and I can even say that they situation is worst than in the Russian Far East.
Now, the other problem are the animals captured, ALL animals captured in the area were frail, underweight and in bad conditions. The only "healty" specimen was an old female of 12 years old that weighed 80 kg. All the captured tigers were in human settlements hunting domestic animals and dogs and that is why they were captured. So, in the body mass department, I would say that we most be very careful, as all the figures present specimens in bad shape. Check these body measurements:
*This image is copyright of its original author
Check that the chest girth of the 72 kg female is just 7 cm larger than the neck girth of the Sauraha male!
Now check some old weights from the 80's or 90's, probably estimations, but still interesting:
*This image is copyright of its original author
Finally, Peter published an abstract from the JBNHS when Burton (1933) presented two specimens from the Sundarbans, the male weighed 172 kg and the female weighed 109 kg. These are small figures, and probably evidence that Sundarbans tigers had been small since many time, but there is a clear tendency to the dwarfism, from 172 kg to 95 kg in modern days.
They are very small, just like the Sumatran tigers, however they weigh as low as Balinese tigers. Something in wrong there and very few studies has been developed in the area, most of them focused in stooping the conflict between humans and tigers.
03-24-2015, 10:31 PM( This post was last modified: 03-24-2015, 10:43 PM by Amnon242 )
Excellent post Guate, I have some remarks:
1. notice the shoulder height of those tigers - they are quite tall
2. I think that sumatran tigers are by no means small animals. Yes, they are much smaller than bengals or amurs (I understand your point), but I have seen some sumatran tigers in persona and I´d say they can reach 150 kg quite easily. And 150 kg felid is still quite big
03-25-2015, 11:56 AM( This post was last modified: 03-25-2015, 11:58 AM by GuateGojira )
Thanks for your words Amnon242. Since the "witch hunt" of two "posters" against me, I have received few congratulations for my posts, despite the information on them.
Here is my replay:
1. The shoulder height show that those Sundarbans tigers are relative taller, in relation with its body length, in comparison with other Bengal tigers. However the shoulder height of the second male was probably wrong (or taken from shoulder to tip of paw), as the real figure could be about c.85 cm. Interesting the largest male measured 181 cm in head-body length, which is larger than the largest Sumatran tiger that I have saw and close in size to an average mainland Bengal tiger (c.190 cm). However he only weighed 98 kg! So, you can guess how bad was its health in the moment of the capture.
2. Oh yes, Sumatran tigers are big, really big animals and very impressive. Although if we compare them with an Amur-Bengal tiger they looks small, they are still larger than any other big cat (except the lion). Remember how big looked the 148.2 kg Sumatran male "Slamet" in that picture posted here before. Interestingly, the heaviest captive male Sumatran tiger that I know is the male "Juma" with 131.4 kg from the Australia Zoo. I don't know other heavier specimen, maybe you could provide data on males of 150 kg in captivity, that will be excellent!
*This image is copyright of its original author
*The overall frame of the tiger was like this:
*This image is copyright of its original author
It was very large. I will scan my picture with him, so you could decide by yourselves. [img]images/smilies/smile.gif[/img]
(03-24-2015, 10:13 AM)GuateGojira Wrote: The problem with the Sundarbans is that there are no longer large prey species, and add the fact that thanks to the global warming, the mangroves are been flooded with more saline water that affect mammals, like the tiger. It is well known that tigers most drink water with high levels of salt, plus the largest prey that a tiger can found in the area are the chital deer, which in the Sundarbans, don't weight more than 50 or 60 kg. Sundarbans tigers are not living in a paradise, they are living in the edge, and I can even say that they situation is worst than in the Russian Far East.
03-25-2015, 10:21 PM( This post was last modified: 03-25-2015, 10:26 PM by Amnon242 )
(03-25-2015, 11:56 AM)'GuateGojira' Wrote: 2. Oh yes, Sumatran tigers are big, really big animals and very impressive. Although if we compare them with an Amur-Bengal tiger they looks small, they are still larger than any other big cat (except the lion). Remember how big looked the 148.2 kg Sumatran male "Slamet" in that picture posted here before. Interestingly, the heaviest captive male Sumatran tiger that I know is the male "Juma" with 131.4 kg from the Australia Zoo. I don't know other heavier specimen, maybe you could provide data on males of 150 kg in captivity, that will be excellent! [img]images/smilies/tongue.gif[/img]
I have no data about captive sumatran tigers, 150 kg is just my estimate. In my country there are 3 zoos with sumatran tigers and when I saw those tigers I thought "hmm...they are actually quite big".
I can ask the zoos...and if they give me any data, I will post them in sumatran tigers thread...
03-26-2015, 12:21 AM( This post was last modified: 03-26-2015, 12:24 AM by Amnon242 )
(03-25-2015, 11:06 PM)'Pckts' Wrote: A little off topic but How come so many Zoos have Sumatran Tigers?
My guess is, smaller Cat, feed it less, less land needed?
Zoos in Europe (EU) are motivated to breed sumatran tigers (highly endangerd species) by financial grants. Same goes for indian/barbary lions, for example.
03-26-2015, 09:13 PM( This post was last modified: 03-26-2015, 09:16 PM by Amnon242 )
(03-26-2015, 01:44 AM)'Pckts' Wrote: Interesting, are these grants not offered for Pure bred bengals or Siberians?
Ill have to look in to it, I guess.
No...as far as i know. Or perhaps lower than for sumatrans. Amurs are endangered, but there is quite a lot of amurs in captivity...in fact probably too much. And there are no pure bengals in zoos in EU.
03-27-2015, 10:28 AM( This post was last modified: 03-27-2015, 10:32 AM by GuateGojira )
As far I know, the North American Zoos part of the AZA only breed Amur, Sumatran and Malayan tigers. The European Zoos breed only Amur and Sumatran tigers. Australia and Indonesia also breed pure Sumatran tigers. These are the only ones part of controlled programs of breeding. The only pure Bengal tigers are those from India and just recently there is a established breeding program. The few "pure" breed Indochinese tigers live in few zoos of Thailand, Vietnam and Cambodia. Finally, the only South China tigers live in China and South Africa. There ends the captive population of the subspecies of tigers.
According with Luo et al. (2010), the population of pure breed captive tigers, registered in regional or international studbooks, is this: * Amur tigers: 421.
* Indochinese tigers: 14.
* Malayan tigers: 113.
* Bengal tigers: 210.
* Sumatran tigers: 295.
* South China tigers: 64.
For comparison:
* Tigers with unknown origin: 15,000 - 20,000.
Great difference, don't you think?
The following table is from Nyhus et al. (2010). take a look on it, it is self explained:
*This image is copyright of its original author
Finally, take a look to this other table from Traylor-Holzer (2010):
*This image is copyright of its original author
Now you have a the best view about the captive population of tigers in the world. Some values, like that of Bengal tigers, don't match with Luo et al. (2010), but that depend of the sources. All sources quoted here are from the book "Tigers of the world" from 2010.
Indo-Chinese and Malayan tigers
